Review: The National Interest: Politics After Globalization

Walking through the corridors of Foggy Bottom or catching a glimpse of the hurried pace on K Street, We see easy to assume that the machinery of American foreign policy is operating on a crystal-clear blueprint. For decades, the prevailing wind in Washington, D.C. Has been one of multilateralism and a steadfast commitment to the liberal international order. But as we navigate the complexities of 2026, there is a growing sense that the map we have been using no longer matches the terrain. This disconnect is precisely what Philip Cunliffe dissects in his provocative perform, The National Interest: Politics After Globalization. For those of us embedded in the District, where the tension between globalist ideals and domestic pressures is a daily reality, Cunliffe’s analysis isn’t just academic—it is a mirror reflecting the current instability of Western diplomacy.

The Erosion of Coherent National Interest

Cunliffe’s central thesis posits that Western foreign policy has drifted away from a coherent definition of national interest, opting instead for a framework of abstract principles and ideological battles. This shift, he argues, has not led to a more stable world, but has instead fueled global disorder and ideological warfare. For a city like Washington, D.C., which serves as the nerve center for institutions like the U.S. Department of State and the World Bank, this critique hits home. The “liberal international order”—the hegemonic system built after the Second World War on economic openness and multilateral institutions—is currently facing what many consider to be a terminal crisis.

One of the most striking examples Cunliffe provides is the West’s contradictory relationship with nationalism. In the 21st century, mainstream politicians have largely framed nationalist movements as threats to liberal democracy, often associating them with chauvinism. Yet, following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, a bizarre paradox emerged. While Western nationalism remained “bad,” Ukrainian nationalism became an acceptable, even celebrated, sentiment among the same liberal politicians who previously shunned such rhetoric. This inconsistency, Cunliffe suggests, exemplifies the inability of Western nations to place their foreign policies on a coherent conceptual footing.

The Internal Struggle for Democratic Representation

The crisis is not merely one of external diplomacy but of internal democratic health. As noted in recent discussions within the American Affairs Journal, the “national interest” has become a muted phrase in public discourse, often dismissed as a parochial or populist notion. However, the reemergence of the national interest is less about the shift in the global balance of power and more about the internal political relationships of authority and representation within the state. When we lose a clear sense of national interest, we lose the ability to deliberate on our own public life.

This internal erosion is further complicated by the role of supranational institutions. In tandem with the work of Philip Pilkington, Cunliffe highlights how the culture of global liberalism and the rise of these institutions have undermined democratic representation within individual states. When decision-making is shifted to distant, multilateral bodies, the link between the voter and the policy is severed. This creates a vacuum where shifts in global governance are felt locally as a loss of agency, contributing to the extremely populist volatility that the liberal order sought to prevent.

From Global Sacrifice to Sovereign Stability

The practical implications of this theoretical drift are evident in how the West handles urgent crises. Take, for instance, the energy crisis stemming from the war in Ukraine. Rather than framing energy self-sufficiency as a primary national interest, the discourse is often steered toward the “global sacrifice” required for a green energy transition. While the transition is a critical goal, Cunliffe and other critics argue that ignoring the immediate national interest in energy security creates vulnerabilities that geopolitical rivals, particularly China, are quick to exploit.

As the global balance of power shifts toward China and proxy wars continue to destabilize regions from Ukraine to Gaza, the need for a “post-liberal” theory of international order becomes urgent. A world based on competing national interests—rather than competing abstract principles—has the potential to be more peaceful, provided those interests are clearly defined and democratically legitimized. In the heart of D.C., this means moving beyond the rhetoric of “Pax Americana” and engaging in the difficult work of redefining what the United States actually requires for its own long-term stability and security.

Navigating the Shift: Local Expertise in the District

Given my background in geo-journalism and policy analysis, this macro-shift toward “national interest” politics will fundamentally change the professional landscape in Washington, D.C. As the era of unquestioned multilateralism wanes, the demand for specialized, sovereign-focused expertise will rise. If you are a business leader, a policy maker, or an investor in the D.C. Metro area feeling the effects of this geopolitical volatility, you need a specific set of advisors to navigate this modern terrain.

Geopolitical Risk Strategists

Look for consultants who move beyond generic “global trend” reports. You need experts who can perform a “national interest audit”—analyzing how specific shifts in U.S. Sovereign policy (rather than just multilateral agreements) will impact your supply chains or operational footprints. Prioritize those with a track record of analyzing bilateral relations with China and Russia over those who rely solely on institutional white papers.

Sovereign Trade and Energy Attorneys

As the focus shifts from global openness to energy self-sufficiency and strategic autonomy, the legal landscape is changing. Seek out attorneys specializing in the intersection of national security law and international trade. Specifically, look for professionals experienced in navigating the regulatory frameworks of energy independence and the legalities of “friend-shoring” or “near-shoring” production.

Democratic Governance Consultants

With the increasing tension between supranational mandates and domestic representation, organizations need strategists who can bridge the gap. Look for consultants who specialize in “inside/out” policy development—those who can align a company’s or agency’s global objectives with the prevailing internal political currents and democratic expectations of the American public.

Ready to uncover trusted professionals? Browse our complete directory of top-rated features,reviews,foreignpolicy,globalization,internationalinstitutions,nationalinterest,russia,ukraine,war experts in the Washington, D.C. Area today.